DNA EVIDENCE: R. v. S.A.B

Kerens J.A. Alberta Court of Appeal

It was with those words that Alberta Court of Appeal Judge, Kerens J.A., reaffirmed the second degree murder conviction of Ryan Jason Love for the vicious stabbing of Lucie Turmel. The case of R. v. Love (1995) played a pivotal role in the usage of DNA evidence in courtrooms today. It illustrated the importance of DNA and forensic evidence within the field of law. Since the introduction of fingerprint identification, DNA is probably the most powerful and reliable form of forensic evidence, vital to reach an accurate decision. ‘We have come a long way since 1988, when Canadian courts first experienced DNA evidence in the case of R. v. Parent (1988).’ There was controversy then, and there is controversy now. Charter right violations and issues concerning privacy have often been raised in courtrooms, whenever DNA evidence was used. The most recent case of R. v. S.A.B. (2003), serves as a perfect example portraying the general unwillingness amongst Canadians to accept DNA evidence completely. Canadians are disinclined to allowing the government to infringe upon t

Unknown. “R. v. Stillman.” Supreme Court of Canada (1996): 279 pars. 17 Dec. 2003.

Also every individual has a reasonable expectation to privacy, which is clearly violated by DNA searches. DNA evidence constitutes the taking of bodily substances from an individual thereby compromising that individual’s right to life, liberty and security of person. Every individual should have complete autonomy in decision making under section 7 of the Charter. Decisions are made by individuals based on personal characteristics and beliefs they know themselves to possess. So if an individual decides not to give up his / her DNA for usage as evidence in court, that person’s decision must be respected by the government. In the S.A.B. case, Justice Arbour wrote:

Canadian law is, indeed, a living tree and the case of R. v. S.A.B. reflects our governments need to apply utilitarianism that is justifiable by the Charter. The Supreme Courts judgment in the case of R. v. S.A.B. is quite accurate and should represent the view of the majority of Canadians. Individual rights have always been secondary as opposed to the achievement of the greater good of society; and that is the way it should be. If individual rights were placed over the greater good of society, then our society would become lawless, with the selfishness of individuals prevailing over the safety and prosperity of the society as a whole. Utilitarianism, is a principle that works in a democratic society such as Canada, and hence its application to law is justified and possibly the right thing to do.

Macdonald, Trevor. “Genetic Justice: DNA evidence and the Criminal Law in Canada.” University of Manitoba,

Some topics in this essay:
LAB ERROR, Court Canada, Criminal Code, Turmel Love, Rights Freedoms, Justice Arbour, Love Love’s, SAB SAB, SAB DNA, Jeremy Bentham, dna evidence, individual rights, pars 17 dec, 17 dec, dec 2003, pars 17, 17 dec 2003, supreme court, criminal code, dna warrant, warrant provisions, dna warrant provisions, supreme court canada, dna analysis, dna evidence criminal,